From: Anton Cox (A.G.Cox_at_city.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Sep 27 2001 - 01:52:49 PDT
On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, Glenn Overby II wrote:
> Validity: On the surface, this looks good. The problem is that the
> rule excludes certain eligible players in certain circumstances
> from being able to post a valid rule at all. This conflicts with
> Regular Ordinance 4, which specifies how a player becomes eligible
> to post a rule. INVALID.
I fail to see how my rule does this - it may *appear* to, but I believe
it does not (that was part of its design...)! Thus would the judge
please explain in what way certain eligible players in certain
circumstances can be prevented from being able to post a valid rule.
I presume he feels that people such as myself (and Jesse) are already
in that position; I however feel that it is possible for me to submit
a valid rule.
(I feel an overrule appeal coming on...)
In any case, regardless of whether or not I am right on that point,
the ROs are not in conflict with the judge's interpretation of the
rule. RO4 sets out criteria for determining when a member is
*eligible* to play. This does not mean that it will be *possible* for
them to submit a valid rule in the particular circumstances of a
round. I am eligible to stand for election as a member of parliament
here in the UK - but if I dont have a spare 1000 pounds (or whatherever
the current deposit is), then it will not be possible in practice for
me to do so.
Best Wishes,
Anton
--
Rule Date: 2001-09-27 08:52:03 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST